Each "Style" is nothing more than a particular hodge podge of techniques that are universal (each person has the same basic kind of body) with a local twist. No style has everything, and lots don't allow techniques that are not included. No punching to the face in TKD, no kicks in boxing, no elbows in K-1, ect. Personally, I think we should just get rid of "styles" and learn all techniques -THAT WORK-. Like, this stance, that stance, you punch this way or that... its stupid. Right now there's a Sanshou/MT rivalry, but the have a difference. Sanshou has throws, Mt has knees/elbows and clinching (correct me if I'm wrong). Why not allow BOTH? Why? Because the chinese want THEIR own "art" to defeat MT in the ring.

A Mix is required to be complete, simply because each person wants to individualize their own particular fighting style. I honestly think some people a few hundred years ago sat around trying to make their style look cool. I can't belive the stupidity shown about this style that style nyah nyah nyah. Just have general grappling, with everything in it, including strikes while on the ground. Have general striking, with everything in it. For self-defence maby some eyegrouging/fishooking/ear grabbing or whatever. Have general clinching with everything known within it, including general takedowns, and general throws. Put in EVERYTHING from each "style" and just make a unified set of techinques that work. I guarantee that combined with effective training (another huge problem), and elimination of artifical ranking systems, "general" stuff would beat any individual style. Then it comes down to the person, their training, their conditioning, their abilities, their tactical sense, their intellect, not what techniques they neglected to learn.

&amp;lt;Me&amp;gt; John, what do you know about Zen Buddhism? &amp;lt;John&amp;gt; *smacks me*
&amp;lt;John&amp;gt; I'd have to smack you sometime...

Katana, on 540 kicks: "Hang from a ceiling fan with both hands. Flail your feet out and ask people to walk into you as you hit their face."

but you could just work on each indivisual style at the same time, but in seperate classes and have a class which incoporates them all. It's good either way, except with the mixed you don't get to concentrate on one aspect enough most of the time, so you have to do everything seperately. The difference being that you get to practice "everything" in one, and it can be abit more fun overall. I think there may also be MMA/Shootfighting etc specific moves, that use two styles, but not many (maybe non), because MMA is really just Submission fighting with Muay Thai anyway...

Also I think you could just improvise with the eye gouging, biting and groin strikes if you really had to.

Alot of the time people go to certain styles just because they want to do that style specifically, without everything else, which can sometimes (alot of the time?) more more effective than mixing them together I should think, but certainly not always.

ps that icon of that stick figure hitting his head against the keyboard is awesome :)

"Training = pain." - I said that.

PizDoff when drunk: "I'm actually MOST pissed that my target for the evening got drink...then I gave her my Bullshido Canada hoodie like a gentleman because she was outside with not much on...did I mention she barfed twice when I got our jackets...steaming barf is kinda fascinating..." - PizDoff.

When I said effective training, I meant that you should use the ideal methods. While obvousily sparring and learning to apply all of these aspects together is very important, spending time on just one thing, and how to transition from one class of technique to another (striking to clinch or takedown, for example) would be effective.

It really struck a nerve when I realized the whole style vs style debate boils down to one allows more than other, therefore it wins. Or that the training is simply inept. Restrictive rules in tournaments are another pet peeve. But I'm simply flogging a dead horse, anyone with a brain would know that restricting techinques and inept training would breed an inept, restrected fighter.

Oh, that icon was part of the std avatars for this board hehe. Kinda suits the mood I'm normaly in when I'm posting.

&amp;lt;Me&amp;gt; John, what do you know about Zen Buddhism? &amp;lt;John&amp;gt; *smacks me*
&amp;lt;John&amp;gt; I'd have to smack you sometime...

Katana, on 540 kicks: "Hang from a ceiling fan with both hands. Flail your feet out and ask people to walk into you as you hit their face."

Disagreeing with what you said, but not dismissing it, style may not be the problem. It more often than not tends to be a persons perception of style. Lot's of arts have moves in them that people don't use or don't appreciate. Karate doesn't have grappling? One of the stances is an armbar if you choose to do it that way. If you look closely at many arts you can see things that aren't associated with that art. So maybe the problem is that people have too rigid a view of their style, as opposed to an open minded approach that can open a whole new way of applying techniques.

-----
Traditional Martial Artist. As in I don't go around looking for fights in cages where I can't just poke them in the eye and rip their throat out.
Mixed Martial Artist. As in I study more than one style and mix them together.

About style, a lot of what style is, it's a logical extension of a doctrinal base. For example, TKD says "Legs are longer and more powerful, so use them in a fight" and so, they kick. And how, if you've ever seen a good TKD master(i.e., not McDojang).

By making a style, you have the opportunity to train to a higher level of proficiency with something that is certain to have some use in a fight, as opposed to train generally in things that have the same certainty of usability, but you won't be able to achieve as much proficiency in them.

If someone could fight using well everything that worked from every style, would they do well? Certainly. Could someone study MT/Sanda/Karate/Boxing/TKD/BJJ/Sambo/JJJ/Judo/Wrestling/Pankration/Arnis/Aikijujutsu/Kenpo/Aikido/Qwankido/Taiji/Bagua/Xingyi/Pak Mei/Savate/Wing Chun/Hapkido/Ninjutsu/Pentcak Silat enough to learn all the effective techniques and be proficient in them? I doubt it, there aren't enough hours in the day. I'm sure you know about Jeet Kune Do, and how those faithful to its principles are still researching it to this day.

Granted, this faith in doctrine that makes for style can make for problems when it comes to modern combat.

I imagine in the old days, you studied a certain way because you knew your who your enemies in war were and that they would fight a certain way. For example, Okinawan peasants trained to fight against samurai because the samurai were the ones invading. Besides the farmer's weapons they had, they used their fists and feet and often assumed the enemy had a katana when they devised and practiced their techniques.

Karate people: ever done a high block to jam an arm, followed by an elbow strike to the ribs? Today's sensei say it's a good defense against someone swinging a tire iron, but in the old days that tire iron was a katana.

Unfortunately for TMA, there aren't so many "tire iron" situations when it comes to converting ancient techniques to modern application (stopping kicks by scooping the leg comes to mind). However, today's masters still study the old ways, and still teach them to modern students. It's kind of like this: a doctrine like "use your hips to generate power" is still sound, but an ancient technique founded on that doctrine, like delivering a fingertip strike to a vital point near the groin, may not be anymore.

Problems for TMA in real fights come when masters and students learn and develop with the doctrine as their focus, as opposed to adapting the doctrine to real, modern combat. TKD, like you mentioned, is a classic example of this. I imagine ancient Tae Kyon stylists not punching to the face because they assumed their kicks would keep their enemies at bay, an assumption that likely carries on to modern TKD.

I guess, in summary, that less limits for modern combat is good, but tradition has more lessons than some modern folks are reluctant to admit.

--------------------
And that's what I call REAL Ultimate Power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"The morning glory blooms for an hour. It differs not at heart from the giant pine, which lives for a thousand years."

In the entire history of feudal Japan, there is only one recorded instance of an unarmed man disarming a katana wielding Samurai.

That's a lot of sliced up Okinawans.

Jujitsu was better than karate then, just like now.

If a `religion' is defined to be a system of ideas that contains unprovable statements, then Godel taught us that mathematics is not only a religion, it is the only religion that can prove itself to be one. -- John Barrow

umm... doctrinal base is exactly what I'm against. "thinking" something will work is bullshit, honestly. And against someone else who can fight you up, down, at range, or up close, a strict doctrine isn't going to cut it. And no I don't mean learn every art, I mean look at the techinques, eliminate the multiplicity, take what works, and throw out the crap. You can develop good kicking without having to take TKD. You can be good at punching without takind Boxing. There are plenty of ways to learn other strikes, as well as grappling, yadda yadda yadda. Focus on techinque and not the art. Now, an example of a person transcending an art would be Bruce lee, and he also represents a philosophical advance in Martial Arts. I belive in some of his ideas about Martial arts, such as not being loyal to one art vs another, and developing yourself. Another case would be Mike Tyson, who is the undisputed ear biter of all time. Joking aside, strict style adherance is stupid. Too many arts have restrictive rules and leave out techniques. Not allowing elbows and such, no grappling or even "holding", no leg kicks, -groan- no punches to the face. Its a waste of time. And its ultimately a bad thing. I assume you've seen the keylocked kung fu guy... he probably didn't have any experience in takedowns, did he? And he "knew" he would beat the MMA guy.

Bottom Line, An art is just a bunch of techniques with an old or dead guy saying they alone are best. We've grown beyond that. Even the gracies learned how to do more than grapple, and the others learned jiujutsu. But its really the techniques, not the "style", that matters. Calling it a name is just for impressing the ignorant.

&amp;lt;Me&amp;gt; John, what do you know about Zen Buddhism? &amp;lt;John&amp;gt; *smacks me*
&amp;lt;John&amp;gt; I'd have to smack you sometime...

Edited by - Nihilanthic on July 27 2002 02:14:33

Katana, on 540 kicks: "Hang from a ceiling fan with both hands. Flail your feet out and ask people to walk into you as you hit their face."

I didn't say you were supposed to disarm the guy with it... If some chunks of rib got sent into a lung, that'd probably be enough. *ahem*

Nihilanthic, I'd drink to strict adherence being stupid, were I of legal age to do so (Not that that stops anyone else... ). I think a lot more people would have some respect for TKD if they allowed punches to the face, leg kicks, grappling but still trained in kicking because of what effectiveness it'd been proven to have in the past.

I can respect doctrinal base because besides thinking something will work, the progenitors of arts had often tested it, studied it and seen it in action (i.e. ancient Kung Fu people witnessing fights between animals as inspiration and whatnot).

I can respect somewhat less strictly adhering to that doctrine in ignorance of other ideas. Bruce Lee didn't do that, the Chekov-looking dude whose ass he kicked did, and we all know the result. I'll agree that Fred Ettish and Mr. Kung Fu from the video deserved to get his ass kicked, martial artists shouldn't have faith in their systems, they should have faith in themselves.

Yeah, you can kick without taking TKD and punch without studying boxing, but the TKD masters and Boxing champions over the generations have studied kicking and punching and developed it to lethal effect. Does that mean you should submit to their limitations in your personal study? No. Does it mean you shouldn't take note of what they've learned over the centuries? Again, no. In fact, Bruce Lee studied other arts to create JKD. I remember reading Tao of JKD and seeing sections like "study of Karate" and "study of Boxing."

It's like this: instead of thinking, "What should I do if someone slashes horizontally at my face with a knife," I'm more inclined to think "Arnis, Aikido, Karate and other arts have techniques that can defend against such an attack. I'll learn which one is best for me and practice it."

--------------------
And that's what I call REAL Ultimate Power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"The morning glory blooms for an hour. It differs not at heart from the giant pine, which lives for a thousand years."

Nihilanthic, if you try to learn different aspects of martial arts without practising them then they're going to be ineffective. And there aren't many MAs were you can learn to punch like a boxer or kick like a MT practitioner. There are certain arts you should learn in order to beable to put them together and learn unique moves (these are likely to come nautrally, like when you're sprawling and try to work some MT knees.)

I'm afraid it's alot to to with what style is better etc, which is more effcient, which is the best. Also These styles should beable to recommend different training methods or at least promote them (like working out, excerszing everyday.) But then it is mostly to do with the person overall, but then it's the style that should teach you to train a certain way.

Essentially the best fighters are usually the ones who have become excellent in all different arts and can use them together very well. Not just some1 who can use them together and is okay at each indivisual aspect (although this can be better than just being excellent at only one.) Like Frank Shamrock isn't the best kickboxer (though he beat a kickboxer) but is still one of the best at putting them all together, and excellent at the indivisual arts (like for instance kickboxing/mt) anyway.

Edited by - Blade Windu on July 27 2002 10:28:44

Edited by - Blade Windu on July 27 2002 16:22:35

"Training = pain." - I said that.

PizDoff when drunk: "I'm actually MOST pissed that my target for the evening got drink...then I gave her my Bullshido Canada hoodie like a gentleman because she was outside with not much on...did I mention she barfed twice when I got our jackets...steaming barf is kinda fascinating..." - PizDoff.